Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Men are violent by nature, and trying to repress that only leads to very big problems. It is better to give them a safe outlet (such as playing with water guns for boys)

I call bull on this. People are violent. Boys are typically encouraged to embrace their violent impulses more than girls, but that doesn't mean that boys are naturally more violent than girls.

That is true. But it doesn't make what he said wrong, he wasn't saying that girls can't be violent too.

He clearly stated that men are naturally violent. That is an old idea that needs to die. Men are not more naturally violent than women. Men are simply conditioned to embrace the naturally occurring violence inherent in people. It is a subtle but important difference, otherwise you get arguments that other conditioned behaviors are "natural" and that leads to thread lock territory.

*edit to elaborate further

You yourself admitted its true. You say people are violent. Men are people, therefore you are also claiming that men are violent.

But thats not really important either way.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
First of all, who gives a gak?

I give a gak because of the ongoing wussifications on our boys.

Im sorry what?

Its been happening for a while now. Traditionally masculine activities and behavior are viewed as not cool or outright disallowed.

Toy guns are bright neon colors. Playing cops and robbers is viewed negatively or banned in places where they can(like schools). Roughhousing isn't allowed. etc...

I'm sure whembly has many more examples.

Because a real cop with a real gun will drive up and fething shoot you dead, that's why they don't allow you to do these things.

Sure, if you act aggressively with the toy gun.

If you obey the officers instructions you won't get hurt and the situation can get resolved. I'll be sure to teach my kids to obey what the police say, especially in a situation like that.

Um, not sure if you remember playing with toy guns, but that was the whole g-d point of playing War, Cowboys & Indians, Cops & Robbers or wtf-ever. it was to act aggressively towards your playmates. In the case of Tamir Rice, the cops closed to within 10 feet of him, ordered him to drop the gun, and opened fire less than 2 seconds later. Maybe I, as a combat-trained Army veteran, could react to what was basically an ambush by armed men appropriately in under 2 seconds, but a 12 year old child?

He did react. He reached for the gun. 2 seconds is plenty of time to at least freeze, and he had more than that because as soon as he saw the cars he had time to think, and had all that time it took them to close within 10 feet. Its not like they teleported within 10 feet instantly. It took some time, plenty to think. Instead, he took a hostile action by reaching for the gun. No person desiring to be compliant, even subconsciously, would reach for a gun if cops were surrounding you and aiming real guns at you.

Sure, when I was playing Cowboys and Indians, we played aggressively. But I guarantee that sure as hell we would have stopped that if the cops showed up.

Everything Tamir did was wrong, everything the cops did was without fault.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Men are violent by nature, and trying to repress that only leads to very big problems. It is better to give them a safe outlet (such as playing with water guns for boys)

I call bull on this. People are violent. Boys are typically encouraged to embrace their violent impulses more than girls, but that doesn't mean that boys are naturally more violent than girls.

That is true. But it doesn't make what he said wrong, he wasn't saying that girls can't be violent too.

He clearly stated that men are naturally violent. That is an old idea that needs to die. Men are not more naturally violent than women. Men are simply conditioned to embrace the naturally occurring violence inherent in people. It is a subtle but important difference, otherwise you get arguments that other conditioned behaviors are "natural" and that leads to thread lock territory.

*edit to elaborate further

Isn't it odd that if this violent male behaviour is conditioning then that almost every single culture has chosen to condition their men this way?

 Grey Templar wrote:
You yourself admitted its true. You say people are violent. Men are people, therefore you are also claiming that men are violent.

But thats not really important either way.

Please see my edit in case you missed it. Yes men are people too, and as people they can be violent, but that does not make what Iron_Captain claimed true (and taking his logic further that would also mean that women AREN'T naturally violent, which we also know to be patently false).

It is important to differentiate this because it is still ingrained in many people that there are natural traits associated with each of the sexes which is simply not true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Men are violent by nature, and trying to repress that only leads to very big problems. It is better to give them a safe outlet (such as playing with water guns for boys)

I call bull on this. People are violent. Boys are typically encouraged to embrace their violent impulses more than girls, but that doesn't mean that boys are naturally more violent than girls.

That is true. But it doesn't make what he said wrong, he wasn't saying that girls can't be violent too.

He clearly stated that men are naturally violent. That is an old idea that needs to die. Men are not more naturally violent than women. Men are simply conditioned to embrace the naturally occurring violence inherent in people. It is a subtle but important difference, otherwise you get arguments that other conditioned behaviors are "natural" and that leads to thread lock territory.

*edit to elaborate further

Isn't it odd that if this violent male behaviour is conditioning then that almost every single culture has chosen to condition their men this way?

Why condition it then? Why say "almost every single culture" if males are naturally violent? If males were naturally violent wouldn't EVERY culture have their men behaving violently? History has shown this to not be the case, so it becomes a matter of culture and conditioning. Men are typically encouraged by their cultures to be violent and to engage in violence, but that doesn't mean that a male baby is predisposed to violence. It just means that through rearing he will be taught to embrace those aspects of his personality while shunning others.

Do you think it would have been conditioned if it wasn't already a strength? Thats how things work. You enhance strengths and minimize weaknesses.

If it wasn't a natural tendency, then we should have a pretty even mixture of male and female martial cultures. Instead its disproportionately male. That suggests its not simple conditioning but rather a stimulation of natural male aggression to focus on something. We didn't have some group of people long in the distant past flip a coin to see if they should train the men or women in particular behaviors. They used the natural traits of both sexes to decide.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You yourself admitted its true. You say people are violent. Men are people, therefore you are also claiming that men are violent.

But thats not really important either way.

Please see my edit in case you missed it. Yes men are people too, and as people they can be violent, but that does not make what Iron_Captain claimed true (and taking his logic further that would also mean that women AREN'T naturally violent, which we also know to be patently false).

It is important to differentiate this because it is still ingrained in many people that there are natural traits associated with each of the sexes which is simply not true.

I said men are naturally violent, because we are talking about men (or boys) here, not about girls. Girls can be violent too, but this is more rare because of multiple reasons.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sienisoturi wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Men are violent by nature, and trying to repress that only leads to very big problems. It is better to give them a safe outlet (such as playing with water guns for boys)

I call bull on this. People are violent. Boys are typically encouraged to embrace their violent impulses more than girls, but that doesn't mean that boys are naturally more violent than girls.

That is true. But it doesn't make what he said wrong, he wasn't saying that girls can't be violent too.

He clearly stated that men are naturally violent. That is an old idea that needs to die. Men are not more naturally violent than women. Men are simply conditioned to embrace the naturally occurring violence inherent in people. It is a subtle but important difference, otherwise you get arguments that other conditioned behaviors are "natural" and that leads to thread lock territory.

*edit to elaborate further

Isn't it odd that if this violent male behaviour is conditioning then that almost every single culture has chosen to condition their men this way?

Why condition it then? Why say "almost every single culture" if males are naturally violent? If males were naturally violent wouldn't EVERY culture have their men behaving violently? History has shown this to not be the case, so it becomes a matter of culture and conditioning. Men are typically encouraged by their cultures to be violent and to engage in violence, but that doesn't mean that a male baby is predisposed to violence. It just means that through rearing he will be taught to embrace those aspects of his personality while shunning others.

In which culture do women typically behave more violent than men?
There is a pretty clear biological and evolutionary reason why every culture on the entire world has their men behaving more violent than women. The fact that men have higher muscle mass and more testosteron (a hormone that encourages agression) quite simply ensure that men in general are naturally more violent than women. The evolutional reason for this is that men needed the added muscle mass and agression to hunt and ensure food and fight off rivals, while women needed to birth and take care of children.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Do you think it would have been conditioned if it wasn't already a strength? Thats how things work. You enhance strengths and minimize weaknesses.

If it wasn't a natural tendency, then we should have a pretty even mixture of male and female martial cultures. Instead its disproportionately male. That suggests its not simple conditioning but rather a stimulation of natural male aggression to focus on something. We didn't have some group of people long in the distant past flip a coin to see if they should train the men or women in particular behaviors. They used the natural traits of both sexes to decide.

I am not sure, to be honest. From the readings I have been exposed to (Margaret Mead is a great author to look up, her studies of island cultures convinced me that temperaments are not naturalized to specific sexes) I think that cultures come up with their own ways of handling situations and sometimes those choices coincide with physical abilities or limitations of a sex. However, I don't think that necessarily proves that a sex is naturally predisposed to behave a certain way. Men are typically stronger and faster than women, so it stands to reason that if a culture needed strapping brutes to defend its territory that the majority of those people would be men. And I would imagine said culture would want to keep that tradition going, so they'd take their boys at a young age and start training them in the arts of being a warrior. But does that mean men are naturally aggressive, or does that mean men, who typically have more muscle mass on their torsos, are better able to use weaponry to kill than a typical female and so are chosen to fulfill that purpose from an early age?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I said men are naturally violent, because we are talking about men (or boys) here, not about girls. Girls can be violent too, but this is more rare because of multiple reasons.

Which again, is not true. Predisposed might be the word you are looking for rather than natural. And again, I'd argue that ultimately that predisposition is cultural, but whatevs. It isn't natural.

If you state something is naturally occurring it should manifest without human influence, and that would mean (according to you) that men would always exhibit violent behavior regardless of cultural influence, and we know that is not true. There are pacifist men. You are also stating that is rare for women to be violent, which is also not true. People are violent animals and it doesn't matter what is hanging (or not) between your legs to bring that violence out.